FLYD vs. BERZ

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

FLYD (MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) and BERZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) are both Inverse Equities funds - FLYD tracks the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index while BERZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLYD returned -56.28%/yr vs -74.94%/yr for BERZ. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

FLYD vs. BERZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (BERZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLYD achieves a -30.35% return, which is significantly higher than BERZ's -54.85% return.

FLYD

• 1D: 3.79%
• 1M: -24.33%
• YTD: -30.35%
• 6M: -26.65%
• 1Y: -55.29%
• 3Y*: -56.28%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BERZ

• 1D: -1.69%
• 1M: 16.26%
• YTD: -54.85%
• 6M: -52.15%
• 1Y: -78.45%
• 3Y*: -74.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLYD vs. BERZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-30.35%	-60.42%	-54.13%	-75.14%	-46.63%
BERZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-54.85%	-78.81%	-65.95%	-89.12%	-13.80%

Correlation

The correlation between FLYD and BERZ is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2022	0.61

The correlation between FLYD and BERZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLYD vs. BERZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLYD	BERZ
Consumer Cyclical	51.1%	13.0%
Industrials	27.8%	-
Technology	13.2%	60.8%
Communication Services	7.8%	26.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	13.3%
Healthcare	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FLYD vs. BERZ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

FLYD

FLYD Risk / Return Rank: 2
FLYD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
FLYD Martin Ratio Rank: 0

BERZ

BERZ Risk / Return Rank: 1
BERZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
BERZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
BERZ Omega Ratio Rank: 1
BERZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
BERZ Martin Ratio Rank: 1

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

FLYD vs. BERZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (BERZ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	FLYD	BERZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.73	-0.97	+0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.90	-2.06	+1.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.90	0.78	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-1.01	-0.93	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-2.07	-1.50	-0.57

FLYD vs. BERZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLYD Sharpe Ratio is -0.73, which is comparable to the BERZ Sharpe Ratio of -0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLYD and BERZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FLYD vs. BERZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLYD drawdown since its inception was -98.45%, roughly equal to the maximum BERZ drawdown of -99.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLYD and BERZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLYD	BERZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.45%	-99.80%	+1.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-55.15%	-84.60%	+29.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-94.61%	-98.87%	+4.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-98.39%	-99.73%	+1.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-83.26%	-71.86%	-11.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.03%	52.31%	-22.28%

Volatility

FLYD vs. BERZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) is 26.01%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (BERZ) has a volatility of 33.01%. This indicates that FLYD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BERZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLYD	BERZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	26.01%	33.01%	-7.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	62.95%	63.57%	-0.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.71%	81.14%	-5.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	83.83%	92.75%	-8.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	83.83%	92.75%	-8.92%

FLYD vs. BERZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FLYD and BERZ have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

FLYD vs. BERZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FLYD nor BERZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLYD and BERZ in my portfolio?

FLYD and BERZ have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLYD or BERZ?

BERZ has higher volatility (33.01%) compared to FLYD (26.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLYD dropped -98.45% vs BERZ's -99.80%.

Which ETF is better, FLYD or BERZ?

On 3-year performance, FLYD leads with -56.28% vs -74.94% for BERZ. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FLYD has been the lower-risk option at 26.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLYD or BERZ?

Over the 3-year period, FLYD has performed better with a -56.28% return vs -74.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLYD or BERZ?

FLYD and BERZ have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLYD or BERZ?

FLYD and BERZ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FLYD and BERZ?

FLYD tracks MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index, while BERZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index. They also come from different issuers: REX and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLYD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.73 vs -0.97), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.